Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
OIG-17-10 We determined that the U.S. Secret Service has clearly taken the Protective Mission Panel’s (PMP) recommendations seriously, which it has demonstrated by making a number of significant changes.  Specifically, it has improved communication within the workforce, better articulated its budget needs, increased hiring, and committed to more training.  However, fully implementing many of the PMP’s recommendations will require long-term financial planning, further staff increases, consistent re-evaluation of the initiated actions’ effectiveness, and a multi-year commitment by Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security leadership.  We have made five recommendations.

>The Secret Service Has Taken Action to Address the Recommendations of the Protective Mission Panel 		2017
OIG-15-41 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) operates the Biometrics at Sea System (BASS) to collect biometric data from interdicted aliens. The biometrics are sent to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) to identify potential persons of interest, including suspected terrorists. We audited BASS interface with IDENT, security roles and responsibilities, and change control management. We determined that USCG did not have a routine reconciliation process to ensure that all biometrics that it captured on the 23 cutters are maintained in IDENT. Not ensuring reconciliation between the total biometrics USCG submitted and the number stored in IDENT may impede future identification of suspected terrorists, aggravated felons, or other individuals of interest. USCG also allowed application programmers with unrestricted system access to share passwords. The control weakness may result in individuals making unauthorized changes to the system without detection. Further, we determined that the authorization for the transition from the 2-fingerprint to 10-fingerprint application system was not properly documented and security documentation had not been updated. Without a proper authorization process, USCG could not provide assurance that senior executives approved the change prior to implementation.

>The Security Posture of the United States Coast Guard's Biometrics At Sea System Needs Improvements 		2015
OIG-09-79 The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 2009
OIG-12-61  

>The State of Arizona's Management of Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 		2012
OIG-08-99 The State of Arizona’s Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006 2008
OIG-12-116  

>The State of Arkansas’ Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded, During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 		2012
OIG-09-33  

>The State of California's Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2004 thorugh 2006 ( 		2009
OIG-11-46  

>The State of California's Management of Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 		2011
OIG-12-04 The State of Colorado’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-08-20 The State of Florida's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 2008
OIG-12-13 The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-08-22 The State of Georgia's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 2008
OIG-12-110  

>The State of Georgia’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 		2012
OIG-09-06 The State of Illinois' Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006 2009
OIG-13-08 Regis & Associates, PC performed an audit of the State of Illinois’ management of the Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grants for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008. The audit was performed in accordance with Contract Number TPD-FIGBPA-07014; Task Order 0001, dated September 29, 2009. This report presents the results of the audit, and includes recommendations to help improve the State of Illinois’ management of the audited Urban Areas Security Initiative grants.

>The State of Illinois’ Management of Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2008 		2013
OIG-12-03 The State of Louisiana’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-10-116  

>The State of Maryland's Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 		2010
OIG-08-26 The State of Michigan's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 2008
OIG-12-114  

>The State of Michigan’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 Through 2009) 		2012
OIG-12-14 The State of Minnesota’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-10-33  

>The State of Missouri's Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 		2010
OIG-12-16 The State of Montana’s Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-11-83  

>The State of Nevada’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 		2011
OIG-07-58 The State of New Jersey's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 2007
OIG-11-112  

>The State of New Jersey’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 		2011
OIG-12-102  

>The State of New Mexico’s Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 		2012
OIG-13-85 Hurricane Sandy made landfall on October 29, 2012, near Atlantic City, New Jersey. The storm was the second largest Atlantic hurricane on record, with a diameter of tropical storm force winds spanning more than 900 miles, and it affected one of the most densely populated areas in the northeastern United States. The storm affected coastal and inland communities resulting in loss of life, major flooding, structural damage, and power loss to more than 8.5 million homes and businesses, directly affecting more than 17 million individuals. The President declared a disaster for New Jersey and for New York on October 30, 2012. Because of the devastation caused by the storm and the impacted population, the President provided direction that all Federal agencies were to lean forward and “cut through” bureaucracy and red tape in efforts to expedite response aid to survivors.

>The State of New York Needs to Sign Mission Assignments More Quickly 		2013
OIG-11-30  

>The State of New York's Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 		2011
OIG-07-02 The State of North Carolina's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, 2007
OIG-15-03-D The County received over $24 million in Public Assistance awards for three federally declared flooding events. Our objective was to determine whether the County accounted for and expended FEMA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. The County has procedures in place to account for disaster-related costs on a project-by-project basis. The County however, has completed very little of the work FEMA approved for the three federally declared disasters. At the time of our field work, the County did not have sufficient records available for us to determine whether the County is fully capable of managing the three Federal grants.

>The State of North Dakota Needs to Assist Ramsey County in Completing $24 Million of FEMA Public Assistance Projects for Three Federally Declared Disasters that Occurred in 2009–2011 		2015
OIG-08-28 The State of Ohio's Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 2008
OIG-12-17 The State of Ohio’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 2012
OIG-12-11 The State of Oklahoma’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 2012
OIG-10-29 The State of South Carolina's Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 2010
OIG-11-29  

>The State of Tennessee's Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 		2011
OIG-11-44  

>The State of Texas' Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants 		2011
OIG-08-83 The State of Utah’s Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded during Fiscal Years 2004-2006 2008
OIG-12-124  

>The State of Utah’s Management of Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 		2012
OIG-19-64 In two of the four areas – training and collaboration – Washington’s Emergency Management Division (EMD) and FEMA complied with applicable policies, procedures, and regulations.  In the third functional area – project execution, monitoring and oversight – we did not identify any significant deficiencies.  We found, however, EMD lacked position-specific guidance for all personnel with programmatic responsibilities.  In the last functional area – project and grant closeout – neither EMD nor its subrecipients submitted timely project closeout requests.  In addition, FEMA did not enforce compliance with its own guidance for processing closeouts.  We recommended FEMA ensure EMD complies with its State Administrative Plan by issuing and regularly updating desk manuals.  In addition, we recommended FEMA coordinate with EMD to initiate closeout on behalf of subrecipients for all open, large projects whose period of performance end dates exceed the 90-day regulatory requirement, and submit closeout requests to FEMA for projects exceeding the 180-day requirement.  We made five recommendations to strengthen EMD’s internal controls to improve its oversight of FEMA’s Public Assistance grant program.  FEMA concurred with all five of our recommendations.

>The State of Washington's Oversight of FEMA's Public Assistance Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2015-2017 Was Generally Effective 		2019
OIG-08-98 The State of Washington’s Management of State Homeland Security Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006 2008
OIG-12-27  

>The State of Washington’s Management of Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 		2012
OIG-10-20 The State of West Virginia's Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 2010
OIG-13-16 The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the State distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently and (2) in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The State was awarded $35,209,566 in Homeland Security Grant Program funds from fiscal years 2008 to 2010. This included $33,851,300 in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants that were subawarded to a total of one grantee and 48 subgrantees. Among the State’s subgrantees are cities, towns, and State agencies.

>The State of Rhode Island's Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Securty Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 		2013
DS-13-02 Subsequently, FEMA approved project worksheet versions 1 to 4 and increased funding to $830,672 based on actual costs and insurance adjustments. However, during project closeout, the Town submitted to FEMA a cost claim of $1,599,777, or $769,105 more than what FEMA approved. FEMA reviewed the Town’s submission and determined that the additional charges were associated with project improvements that substantially changed the approved SOW and classified it as an improved project—and capped project funding at $830,672. The Town has requested reimbursement for project-related costs totaling $1,599,777, and appealed FEMA’s funding determination.

>The Town of San Anselmo, California, Did Not Properly Account for and Expend FEMA's Public Assistance Grant Funds 		2013
OIG-14-24-D The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Town $2,003,218 for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides from December 17,2005, through January 3, 2006.1 The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for six large projects and three small projects? At the time of our audit, the Town had completed work and had submitted a final claim for all projects.

>The Town of San Anselmo, California, Generally Followed Regulations for Spending FEMA Public Assistance Funds 		2014
OIG-15-86 We reviewed TSA’s airport screening equipment maintenance program to determine whether TSA is properly managing its screening equipment maintenance contracts and related maintenance activities. TSA’s four maintenance contracts, which cover both preventive and corrective maintenance, are valued at about $1.2 billion. According to TSA, in fiscal year 2014, it spent about $251 million on maintenance for its screening equipment. TSA is not properly managing the maintenance of its airport screening equipment. Specifically, TSA has not issued adequate policies and procedures to airports for carrying out equipment maintenance-related responsibilities. Because TSA does not adequately oversee equipment maintenance, it cannot be assured that routine preventive maintenance is performed or that equipment is repaired and ready for operational use.

>The Transportation Security Administration Does Not Properly Manage Its Airport Screening Equipment Maintenance Program 		2015
OIG-07-45 The Transportation Security Administration's Management of its Federal Employees' Compensation Act Program, 2007
OIG-08-49 The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 2008
OIG-18-50 The TSA SSI Program Office's Identification and Redaction of Sensitive Security Information 2018
OIG-11-105  

>The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Adjudication of Petitions for Nonimmigrant Workers (I-129 Petitions for H-1B and H-2B visas) 		2011

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page